Exactly, but Vteck seems to be stating that economic value is the only factor that people consider in their choices and that it is the single metric we should judge value by.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Printable View
Exactly, but Vteck seems to be stating that economic value is the only factor that people consider in their choices and that it is the single metric we should judge value by.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
"Anything worth doing is worth doing for money"
Gordon Gecko
Im not arguing that there arent doctors out there who LOVE to get paid $30k a year and just help children in need. But thats not the NORM. Its noble, but its not indicative of our society as a whole.
no, im saying that is the most important metric people operate by when considering their choices, and is the largest metric we should judge value by.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Do you want a nation of people who strive to be MCEEDEES workers, or MILLIONAIRES?
Simple answer, if you were offered the SAME JOB you have now, making $20k a year more, but you had to work with an asshole boss, would you do it? 9/10 would. Wonder why? Wheres their nobility?
"Honor is in the dollar kid"
Why not both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Those aren't the only two possibilities though. There are all sorts of shades of grey. There are tons of doctors who accept $170k instead of $190k because they want to work in Atlanta instead of NYC, or because they want to treat children instead of the elderly, or because they want to perform life saving operations and not cosmetic operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Even if I agreed, I don't think it's like 90%money/10% everything else, it's probably more like 40%money/20%work environment/20%location/20%everything else. Value is a much more personal thing so I don't think you can make such a broad generalization about it. Some people value money very little, others quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Doesn't matter what I want. People decide for themselves what they want to strive for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I guess I am in the 10% then because I certainly wouldn't. I also think there would be a lot more than 10% who would agree with me. Also the 20k is an arbitrary number. Certainly a large number of people wouldn't make that deal if their salary only increased 1 or 2%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I wouldn't do it if I had to work with a boss that's more of an asshole than the one I already work with. Don't even think Id do it for $20k. I'm already on the verge of punching someone in the mouth as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Im just saying that most of your choices are based upon income and expense. You know, from an early age, what pays more money and what doesnt. Teachers make crappy money because relatively easy to get that degree vs say being a trauma surgeon. Thats not to degrade teachers, but lets be honest, its a low paying job and most people know it getting into it.
Most peoples goal in life is to acquire as much wealth as they can within a certain moral compass. Wealth is a HIGHLY motivating factor.
And you guys are full of shit, anyone who turns down $20k EXTRA a year for a little pain ...................is full of shit hahaha
youd rather have the people striving to be the best they can (because pay=level of talent) than people striving to be the bottom of the barrel (minimum wage workers).Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I agree with your general point that money is a big factor in people's decisions. I listed it as the number one factor in the breakdown I gave. Our main disagreement seems to be on how big of a factor it is (on average). Also, no one was saying that doctors shouldn't be well compensated, it was simply a discussion of the effects of a relatively small change. When you consider the high tax brackets most doctors are in, the pain is even less than it may seem at first too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Your scenario of an asshole boss is not a minor pain. That's 40-60/hr every week of my life. That would have a big impact on how enjoyable my life is and it would not be offset by 20k. Of course if it were 50k I may change my mind. Also 20k would be a lot more meaningful to someone making minimum wage whereas to me, it wouldn't change my life much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
We have both and you and others are complaining that the guy with no ambition doesnt have the same quality of life as the guy that does have ambition and made millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
You believe ambition always means striving to be rich?Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Because there are people who are very ambitious who have met their goals in life who do not have millions, or even hundreds of thousands.
It is very common in our country for people to see capitalism not as just an economic system but also as a moral one where making more money literally means you are a better person. Vteck makes such an implication with his statement "pay=level of talent". It makes me wonder if he's never had an idiot boss who makes more than him.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
of course. Im usually much smarter than most of the people I work for. I work for asshole bosses all the time. I didnt say there were no exceptions to the rule. But, in general, if you are better, you eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
A) make it show so you get that better job
B) leave and go somewhere that appreciates you.
In general speaking terms, the better you are in your job the more you get paid.
Thats why a Harvard degree is worth its weight in gold, or MIT, or GT, or Yale, etc.
If you are working at a low paying job, you have no ambition. Even the most noble of jobs pays well. You may not gain personal wealth as a clergyman, but you do live quite well in most areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Ambition means consistently moving up. It doesnt matter if that means you are working for the police dept or a hedge fund. If you have real ambition, you dont reach your goal until you reach the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Ambition is not a 25 year beat cop and it is not the 25 year junior partner. Maybe you prefer to just be a fireman and not deal with the politics of higher rank. Thats fine, but dont act like you have ambition because you made it to the lowest rung of the ladder.
You couldnt possibly be more wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Actually he couldn't be more right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Actually, they couldnt be more..................Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
oh i was just trying to keep it going :P
If that was the case, why do so man in the country think the rich are the cause of all wrongs? Those greedy evil rich people are working to keep people down. blah blah blah.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.
Its actually a really funny point they are trying to make.
Work hard, do well, make a lot of money...........oh wait..............nope, youre makin too much...............................give some of that back its not fair.
Why do so many? There's a reason. But thinking the rich are the cause of all the wrongs is equally as incorrect as thinking ambition always equals lots of $$$Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Its really not the opposite. What do you think is little money, and what is "the wrong things"?Quote:
Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.
Who's trying to make that point? I don't see anyone in here trying to make that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Work hard. Do well. That's it.
you just spent the last 6-7 pages saying that people who achieve the richest of salaries mainly due to hard work dont deserve 10 ferraris or a 10 bedroom mansion. you dont feel sorry for them if they get a pay cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Not feeling sorry for millionaires or very very wealthy people when they take a pay cut is not the same as saying people don't deserve what they work for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Do you feel sorry for the guy who stays in school, who is busy studying and working on his education when the guy who will eventually be the not wealthy guy is out partying, enjoying his life and not having to worry about that responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Or do we wait until the time comes for people to reap what they sow to start feeling sorry?
I say dont feel sorry for anyone. People get what they deserve....... what you do need to stop doing is deciding what people do and do not deserve and quit taking the earnings of one person and giving them to others. but..... that's the foundation of your political allegiance.... redistribution.
Why would I feel sorry for someone working on his education?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
No one is deciding what people do or do not deserve. Redistribution is a very politically charged word in regards to income and taxation that really doesn't exist in the way you think it does.
You say you dont feel sorry for wealthy people taking a pay cut...... did you feel sorry for them when they took a "life cut" and made the necessary sacrifices to become wealthy?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Um. Yes it is. Its baffling you don't see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
No it's not. Trust me. If you're a business man, or any degree of what "conservative" is these days, you feel the same way. You just might not realize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Agree to disagree. i dont draw a line at 10 ferraris over 9.
Not drawing any lines either. But if someone loses one Ferrari, I'm still gonna sleep at night. Not a single tear would be shed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
When someone gets more money from the govt than they pay into the system, where do you think the money comes from?
Take this completely fabricated, but not unlikely scenario. My wife and I have 3 kids and a combined income of 40k a year. At the end of the year we have paid 2500 to the feds in taxes. When we file our taxes and account for all of the tax credits and deductions we get 4k back. On top of that, we are getting section 8 housing and food stamps which comes out to 6k a year.
Tell me, how is that $7500 that has been given to me NOT wealth redistribution? How was that money NOT forceably taken from someone else and given to me?
What if it was a gallon of milk and not a ferrari? My point being is you arbitrarily decide what is "too much" and what is "not enough" based upon what you think is a level of wealth. You pass judgement on others that you know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
All you see is a Ferrari, I see a guy who worked his ass off to make a ton of money, and its his right to spend his money how he wants. Now, should their business decline and he has to sell a Ferrari, then I have no problem with that. But, if a group of people are going to say "YOU CANT HAVE THAT, ITS TOO MUCH" because they dont know any better and their motives are to fleece the wealthy because they are not wealthy themselves.............
well then i draw the line there.
Never said "you can't have that. That's too much"
Your king did.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Obama budget would cap IRAs at $3 million - Encore - MarketWatch
It's not forcibly taken from anyone. The American people wanted this system, they still want it. And it's not redistribution. Its the system you signed up for when you became an american working citizen. You have every right to move somewhere else where you feel the taxation system is more fairQuote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
or............Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
We can work to educate the low information voter who allows a president like Obama to happen. We can teach these morons the error of their ways so that maybe we wont have to suffer through another dirt bag communist wannabe who thinks he can tax us to prosperity. In the mean time, we can all thank congress for keeping a tight leash on this radical lunatic and weather the storm until we can replace him. Hopefully by the time this ordeal is over, people realize that liberal democrats are the scum of the earth and think wisely before voting for another one.
A portion of my pay is taken from my paycheck without my prior authorization and if I dont file the proper paperwork at the end of the year I can be sent to jail. How is that NOT using force to collect?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
The American people were also only told it would only affect the evil rich people when they said they wanted it. Today, it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that a lot of the people that say the like it say that because they dont see or understand a better way of taxation. I have no proof of this, but it isnt much of a stretch to think people fear the unknown over the known.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
So what do you call it when you take something from me and give it to someone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Where is this form I signed saying I wanted to pay 11k in net taxes this year while someone else was given 5k in net tax money?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I have seriously considered it. In the end though, this is still the best and most stable country in the world. For all of its faults, it still provides the most freedom while still providing the highest level of safety and security.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Because you're giving it to them. You've already authorized it. Do you not sign W4's at the end of the year?Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
They were also told it would provide for things like your retirement, healthcare should you need it, assistance should you need it, and they were told it would affect everyone. I guess it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that people believe 20% of their paycheck is a small price to pay for the myriad of services the government provides for you, and that you enjoy.Quote:
The American people were also only told it would only affect the evil rich people when they said they wanted it. Today, it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that a lot of the people that say the like it say that because they dont see or understand a better way of taxation. I have no proof of this, but it isnt much of a stretch to think people fear the unknown over the known.
You mean when you give something to me and I give it to someone else?Quote:
So what do you call it when you take something from me and give it to someone else?
Signature line on the bottomQuote:
Where is this form I signed saying I wanted to pay 11k in net taxes this year while someone else was given 5k in net tax money?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...6vS0TTSIURd3ld
Thanks, taxes! LOLQuote:
I have seriously considered it. In the end though, this is still the best and most stable country in the world. For all of its faults, it still provides the most freedom while still providing the highest level of safety and security.
Read your W4 again. All that does is claim your dependents. It does not authorize anyone to take money from your paycheck.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
EDIT: I was wrong on this part. Under the Purpose section of the W4, it does authorize your employer to withhold money.
How is that possible when all of those things came decades after the 16th Amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
16th Amendment - ratified Feb. 1913
Social Security - 1935
Medicare - 1965
Welfare programs (part of Johnson Great Society initiatives) - 1960's.
Tell me again how an Amendment ratified in 1913 was meant for these programs.
Not given, taken. Remember, if I dont give, I face jail time.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Meant ONLY for distribution of SS taxes and payments. NOT an national ID for tax purposes, or any other purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Yes, taxes for things like police and fire protection and the US military are a necessary evil. Welfare, foreign aid, money to foreign labor unions, money to the UN, etc are not necessary evils. The US could cut funding to the UN today and use that to pay down more debt than we will from Obama's proposed tax increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd